The possible introduction of genetically modified (GM) grapevines into California vineyards is currently causing heated debate. At one extreme, scientists are so familiar with the use of genetic modification as a research technique, they can't see what all the fuss is about. At the other extreme, tree-hugging environmentalists see GM crops as a threat to be resisted at all costs.
Where do I stand? As a lapsed scientist with a Ph.D. in plant biology, I admire the technology of producing GM crops, and feel many of the concerns about GM are not grounded in reality. For a start, we aren't going to be seeing genetically modified vines any time soon--in California, Australia, Europe or any of the major wine-producing countries.
In Australia, CSIRO researcher Simon Robinson is fairly specific on the timescale. "We calculate that if we had a gene available now, and all went well, it would be at least 10 years before a GM vine would be ready for any kind of commercial evaluation," he says. Besides, no wine-producing country will risk its reputation by commercializing GM vines until the public mood becomes more receptive.
Renowned grapevine geneticist Carole Meredith, of UC Davis, agrees: "All the researchers I know are realistic enough to understand that neither consumers nor the wine trade wants transgenic grapes or wine right now." But research is continuing apace, because no one wants to be left out.
Second, safety is pretty much a nonissue. Scientists will never be able to guarantee 100% safety of any new crop variety, whether it is conventionally bred or produced by genetic modification. This doesn't mean that the small risks are sufficient to outweigh potential benefits. While we are used to making risk assessments in our daily lives--getting in the car and driving to work carries a risk--we irrationally object to any level of risk in issues like GM.
Third, there's the risk of ecological contamination, with the creation of super-weed species, or GM crops spreading their transgenes to neighboring farms, causing genetic pollution. Although this is a significant worry for many crops, it isn't such a problem with grapevines, which are never grown from seed. It would be virtually impossible for GM vines to invade nearby vineyards.
Opposition to GM ignores the fact that the world has a pressing need for the sorts of agricultural improvements that GM can bring. Two hundred years ago, Thomas Malthus published his influential essay predicting imminent mass starvation because of logarithmic population growth. This hasn't happened, and it's because of the application of modern science in agriculture.
In the 1950s the world teetered on the brink of the Malthusian precipice, with rapid population increases putting huge pressure on food resources. The "green revolution," a planned international effort, prevented disaster by developing new crop cultivars, which together with the use of irrigation, fertilizers and pesticides, led to agricultural yields increasing threefold in the period 1950-1990.
Now, increases in crop yields have slowed, while the global population is still growing. There's also a shortage of new arable land, with existing farmland already under threat from erosion, salinization and growing urban spread. Future gains in yield will have to be made by more efficient use of existing land, unless we want dramatic deterioration of natural habitats and biodiversity. GM is the best hope for achieving this.
But while there might be a case for GM crops to feed the hungry, do we really need GM vines? What's wrong with the ones we already have? The main problem is that viticulture isn't environmentally friendly, and this leads to a rather ironic situation where the people who most want us to stop spraying vineyards are the ones who oppose strongly the technology that will allow us to do this. Vines are susceptible to fungal diseases and need spraying several times each growing season.
Even organic and biodynamic producers still need to spray. While fungicide-resistant varieties like Regent, Rondo and Phoenix exist, it is highly unlikely that producers will want to switch to these relatively unknown grapes. "The great advantage of genetic engineering." Meredith explains, "is the possibility of introducing a specific trait without otherwise disturbing the complex genotype that gives a wine its flavor." If you try to breed disease-resistant vines by classical methods, you may succeed, but you'll end up with a new grape variety. And the market doesn't really have any place for new grape varieties.
While I'm favorable to the idea of GM vines, I have one serious concern. If scientists manage to develop greatly enhanced GM Syrah or Cabernet Sauvignon or Chardonnay, and consumers change their minds about GM, it is likely that growers will come under severe economic pressure to plant the new modified varieties. Because of the effort and cost of developing new GM vines, it is likely that just a few varieties will eventually be chosen. In addition, just one or two clones from each variety will then be used.
The implications for diversity are obvious. While I'm excited about the potential of this technology, the emergence of GM vines might represent another significant step in the direction of standardized, taste-alike industrial wine. If the cost of adopting GM vines is increased uniformity and loss of wine diversity, is this a price worth paying?
(London-based writer Jamie Goode is the publisher of wineanorak.com and specializes in wine science issues. His first book was published in 2005 by Mitchell Beazley. Contact him through Wines & Vines at edit@winesandvines.com.)
Login:
Membership:
182 
People Online:
